Amer Haykel told acquaintances he was a pilot who was wandering the world on a tight budget. He seemed like "a straightforward person," said Gabriel Garcia of the Cabo San Lucas fire station, where Haykel had sought shelter for several days.

Mexico's federal attorney general's office said late Tuesday that U.S. authorities linked the Lebanese-born British citizen "to extremist groups believed to be involved with the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, in New York."

It did not say if he faced any charges or if he was believed to be personally involved in any terrorist actions.

On Wednesday, Mexico's attorney general's office said officials were trying to determine Haykel's legal status. He was being held in Mexico City by immigration authorities.

In Washington, White House spokesman Scott McClellan referred questions to the Mexican government. Britain's Foreign Office and London's Metropolitan Police said they had no details on Haykel.

Haykel was arrested on Monday at the volunteer fire station of Todos Santos, a small town on the Pacific coast about 35 miles northwest of Cabo San Lucas that is known as a haven for U.S. expatriates.

Garcia said Haykel "went off all day and returned at 7 in the night to sleep" at the station. Haykel told the firefighters he was a pilot and "found himself traveling around the world, but he was doing it without money, seeking rides," Garcia said.

Officials have long expressed concerns that terrorists might use Mexico or Central America to stage an attack on the United States.

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, there have been a series of arrests and reports  from Panama to the Mexico-U.S. border  indicating that terrorists might be in the region. But so far, there has been little hard evidence that anyone was linked to al-Qaida or other terrorist groups.

Last week, Pakistani Arif Ali Durrani, 55, was arrested in the beach resort of Rosarito, across the border from San Diego.

A former U.S. resident, Durrani was handed over to U.S. officials, who charged him with illegally exporting parts used to cool fighter jet engines. Durrani has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Durrani served five years in prison for selling missile parts to Iran in the 1980s.

Central American officials have also reported several alleged terrorist sightings or concerns  including the theory that terrorists were recruiting from the region's violent gangs.

But so far, the U.S. government has backed only one report: An alleged top al-Qaida operative, Adnan El Shukrijumah of Saudi Arabia, spent 10 days in Panama in April 2001.

Will going back to pre-WW1 borders stop the strife in the Middle East?... The Demise of Middle East BordersMay 27, 2013 - A common theme running through much of the leading commentary on the Syrian crisis is the idea that the principal borders of the modern Middle East, created by the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement, are about to be fundamentally altered if not erased completely. In mid-March, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu gave a university speech in which he said that the political order in the Middle East created by the Sykes-Picot Agreement was coming to an end. He envisioned Turkeys influence returning to those areas which were once under its sovereignty but were lost to the European colonial powers.

It seems that everyone is talking about the end of the Sykes-Picot Agreement. In mid-May, David Ignatius of The Washington Post warned the Russians that they would suffer most from the dissolution of the Sykes-Picot boundaries in the Middle East. At the same time, Elliot Abrams, who served as the deputy national security adviser under former U.S. President George W. Bush wrote about the unraveling of the Sykes-Picot agreement. Several weeks earlier, one of Frances leading commentators in the Middle East, Antoine Basbous, wrote in Le Figaro on April 21 that the artificial boundaries established by Sykes-Picot were about to receive their final blow from what he called the Arab tsunami and its aftershocks.

It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of this change should it transpire. In October 1916, during World War I, Sir Mark Sykes, representing Britain, and Charles Francois Georges-Picot, representing France, reached a secret understanding dividing the Asian territories of the Ottoman Empire into spheres of influence that would be dominated by both countries. When the League of Nations established mandates over the former Ottoman territories that the allies subsequently captured, the mandate for Syria and Lebanon went to France while the mandate for Iraq went to Britain. These mandatory regimes in the years that followed led to the empowerment of the Alawite minority over the Sunni majority in Syria and the establishment of the domination of the Sunni minority in Iraq over the Shiites.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement also separated what would become British mandatory Palestine, which had been known among its Arab residents prior to WWI as Surya al-Janubiyya (Southern Syria) from French mandatory Syria to its north. In 1916, Russia, still under the Czar, supported the Sykes-Picot agreement in exchange for its territorial demands being recognized by the British and the French in what became Turkey. Thus the borders of at least five Middle Eastern states would eventually be determined by the original Sykes-Picot Agreement.

Presently, the Middle Eastern border that most observers are focusing on is the 600 kilometer (370 mile) border separating Syria from Iraq. On the Syrian side, important newspapers, like the Financial Times, have been writing this week about the disintegration of Syria. Similarly, The New York Times asserted that the Syrian state is breaking up. It suggested that at least three different Syrias are now emerging: one loyal to the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, another loyal to the opposition, and a Kurdish Syria with ties to Northern Iraq and Kurdish groups in Turkey.

Will going back to pre-WW1 borders stop the strife in the Middle East?... The Demise of Middle East BordersMay 27, 2013 - A common theme running through much of the leading commentary on the Syrian crisis is the idea that the principal borders of the modern Middle East, created by the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement, are about to be fundamentally altered if not erased completely. In mid-March, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu gave a university speech in which he said that the political order in the Middle East created by the Sykes-Picot Agreement was coming to an end. He envisioned Turkey&#8217;s influence returning to those areas which were once under its sovereignty but were lost to the European colonial powers.

It seems that everyone is talking about the end of the Sykes-Picot Agreement. In mid-May, David Ignatius of The Washington Post warned the Russians that they would suffer most from &#8220;the dissolution of the Sykes-Picot boundaries in the Middle East.&#8221; At the same time, Elliot Abrams, who served as the deputy national security adviser under former U.S. President George W. Bush wrote about &#8220;the unraveling&#8221; of the Sykes-Picot agreement. Several weeks earlier, one of France&#8217;s leading commentators in the Middle East, Antoine Basbous, wrote in Le Figaro on April 21 that the &#8220;artificial boundaries&#8221; established by Sykes-Picot were about to receive their final blow from what he called &#8220;the Arab tsunami and its aftershocks.&#8221;

It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of this change should it transpire. In October 1916, during World War I, Sir Mark Sykes, representing Britain, and Charles Francois Georges-Picot, representing France, reached a secret understanding dividing the Asian territories of the Ottoman Empire into spheres of influence that would be dominated by both countries. When the League of Nations established mandates over the former Ottoman territories that the allies subsequently captured, the mandate for Syria and Lebanon went to France while the mandate for Iraq went to Britain. These mandatory regimes in the years that followed led to the empowerment of the Alawite minority over the Sunni majority in Syria and the establishment of the domination of the Sunni minority in Iraq over the Shiites.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement also separated what would become British mandatory Palestine, which had been known among its Arab residents prior to WWI as Surya al-Janubiyya (Southern Syria) from French mandatory Syria to its north. In 1916, Russia, still under the Czar, supported the Sykes-Picot agreement in exchange for its territorial demands being recognized by the British and the French in what became Turkey. Thus the borders of at least five Middle Eastern states would eventually be determined by the original Sykes-Picot Agreement.

Presently, the Middle Eastern border that most observers are focusing on is the 600 kilometer (370 mile) border separating Syria from Iraq. On the Syrian side, important newspapers, like the Financial Times, have been writing this week about the &#8220;disintegration of Syria.&#8221; Similarly, The New York Times asserted that the Syrian state is &#8220;breaking up.&#8221; It suggested that at least three different Syrias are now emerging: one loyal to the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, another loyal to the opposition, and a Kurdish Syria with ties to Northern Iraq and Kurdish groups in Turkey.

I cannot take this article seriously and see it, from an Israeli source, as simply more Zionist Hasbara propaganda. Of course, Israel wants present ME borders torn down, its a way to grab, to steal, more land.

from sherri
I cannot take this adticle seriously and see it, from an Israeli source, as simply more Zionist Hasbara propaganda. Of course, Israel wants present ME borders torn down, its a way to grab, to steal, more land.[/QUOTE]

The demise of NATIONAL BORDERS---is actually a very fundamental concept
in the Utopian ideology of "DAR AL ISLAM" For those who do not know--
this construct disdains "NATIONALISM" in favor of "CALIPHATE"----The
caliphate is a monotheistic ----DIVINELY ORDAINED government. Anyone who
questions the idea that people very interested in either establishing
a CALIPHATE or reestablishing ----one ----and rejects that idea that included
in that idea is a concept of DOING AWAY WITH NATIONAL BOUNDARIES----is
either lying or ill-informed. A few years ago---Achmadinejad---announced in
a General meeting of in the UN-----his simple statement of the FACT OF
THE COMING CALIPHATE-----in these words "ISLAM IS THE RELIGION FOR
ALL OF THE WORLD" -----read that "WORLD WIDE CALIPHATE".

However practicalities do reign-----and no one is stupid enough to
believe that the whole world is about to give in to this idea. Erdogan
would be delighted to just have his chunk-----the OTTOMAN EMPIRE---
and---of course----Iran could start on its road to utopia with its
very own SHIITE caliphate "HEZBOLLIA" There is yet another movement
afoot----in the world ---which is an advocate of "WORLD WIDE THEOCRATIC
MONOTHEISTIC GOVERNMENT"---<<<< this thing is supposed to be a
syncretism of the "christian and muslim world" which---of course --
together constitutes a MAJORITY OF THE WORLD's population

(anyone getting a bit of a twinge that he knows a few people
who seem to be //// leaningggg///// in such a direction???/////___

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!